PIL in Punjab and Haryana High Court to strengthen enforcement of DV Act protection orders

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been moved before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for a direction to create a provision or rules for the mandatory enforcement of protection orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) [Sharmila Sharma v. Union of India and others]..The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal on August 13 asked the Central government, the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh to respond to the plea.The matter is listed for hearing next on September 26..The petition has been filed by advocate Sharmila Sharma who said that she had come across many cases where the victims of domestic violence were suffering because of the non-execution of orders passed under the DV Act.“That beneficial legislation was framed by the State for ensuring effective protection rights to the women are victim of domestic violence, but surprisingly no provision for mandatory execution has been legislated in the Act and orders passed under the provisions of DV Act can be enforced only by resorting to the provisions of Cr.P.C (BNSS),” the plea explains..It further notes that Section 20 (6) of the DV Act can be invoked by the magistrate for the enforcement of a monetary relief order without any application for its execution if the respondent is a salaried person or a creditor, but “there may be very few instances” of such suo motu exercise of power. It adds that this provision is of no help to victims if the respondent is a self-employed person. They would have to invoke Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 147 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for the enforcement of the order for monetary relief, it points out. “Further Section 31 of the D.V. Act defines penalty for breach of protection orders by the respondent, but this provision only provides for the penalty for non-compliance but does not provide any procedure for implementation of the same,” the plea contends. .In view of this, Sharma has contended that the provisions of DV Act are not in harmony and fall short on several accounts both procedurally and substantively.To overcome this, she has cited Section 37 of the DV Act which allows the Central government to make rules for implementation of the law. “But no such rules for of protection orders have been legislated till date and very purpose of enactment of the Act is defeated in absence of mandatory provisions for execution of the protection orders passed under DV Act,” the plea states..Sharmila, in the petition, has also alleged that Protection Officers in terms of Section 8 of DV Act have not been appointed in the every district of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.However, the Haryana government told the Court that in all 22 Districts in Haryana, Protection Officers have been appointed and Aganwadi workers have also been designated to act as Village Level Protection Agents..Advocate Sharmila Sharma appeared in person.Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan represented the State of Haryana. Additional Advocate General JS Gill represented the State of Punjab.Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain with advocate Neha Sharma represented the Union of India.Advocates Abhinav Sood and Arsh Bir represented the Union Territory of Chandigarh..[Read Order]